With the latest celebrity trial of the century coming to a close, Noah and Bill ask the eternal question, "What have we learned?"
Also, why are live-streamed celebrity trials such a s**t show?
Are tag-team lawyers in Utah a thing?
And who is King Morgan?
Bill:
Okay, hello, good morning and welcome to another episode of I Strenuously Object, another immediate turnaround news-focused episode because we've got a verdict in the Gwyneth Paltrow ski case. It is also, of course, true that there was, you know, indictment of Donald Trump that just came out. That doesn't seem like it's very fun to talk about. We are not gonna talk about that here today. We're here for the rollicking good times that are ski accidents involving celebrities. So with that in mind, Noah, the verdict here was that Gwyneth Paltrow was not at fault, that the plaintiff, this optometrist Sanderson, was 100% at fault. He received nothing and there was an award of $1. That same $1 that Paltrow's attorney waived around in the opening argument, an award of $1 for Gwyneth Paltrow as 100% not at fault for the accident. So that's the jury the verdict, was there anything in the last week of the trial that surprised you?
Noah:
Good morning, Bill. Surprised me. More bad lawyering. More a bad judge continued inaccuracies in the media. Now, it was pretty consistently bad from the beginning to end.
Bill:
Yeah, I mean, so I am pretty sympathetic towards the attorneys in the case who are dealing with something that's pretty abnormal for them or for any of us, which is being live streamed for every moment and then having someone find tooth comb their way through every word we say at trial. Those cameras in your face definitely make the job a little bit harder. I didn't see
Noah:
grow up.
Mike Pulcinella:
Ha ha.
Bill:
anything that surprised me either. I thought the script was pretty well set at the end. of Gwyneth Paltrow's testimony. They called her per cross, she testified, she seemed basically credible, and that recognition, that realization was really, I think, what carried us through the rest of the week of trial. One thing I wanna note, and I'd like to talk a little bit, I guess, about plaintiffs closing arguments here, because there was some weirdness there. But the first thing is they were boxed in. They were stuck in their closing argument, making the statement, hey, look, saying Gwyneth Paltrow is a liar. We're just saying that, you know, it's possible for two people who were involved in the event to remember it differently. Well, it is true that two people who were involved in a ski crash could remember it differently. Of course, if one of them is claiming a head injury, it makes you more inclined to listen to the first person. But beyond that, this case, this story, if what Mr. Sanderson was saying is true, then Gwyneth opened the door to a jury finding that she was being honest about what she remembered but remembered it incorrectly when the stories are this different to me it rang a little bit implausible look you should never go up there pounding your fist on the table saying that the other side is a liar but you don't need to give quite as much credit as they gave her because if you thought she honestly believed that that's what happened I don't think there's any way you could have found before the plaintiff in this case
Noah:
Yeah, you know, it was interesting when they started the trial, they were both clearly taking the position that the other party was lying. And that evolved over the trial. And excuse me, as I watched it, Bill, I thought, isn't it possible that you have difficulty seeing he's blind in his right eye? She has full facial covering glasses, ski glasses. And there was a third scenario. here that neither really knew exactly what happened but felt that the other person was responsible and actually nobody was negligent. I mean, that's a possibility in this trial.
Bill:
Well, I mean,
Noah:
I thought that throughout.
Bill:
I thought that those were the two options for a verdict, right? A complete vindication that Sanderson was at fault and Paltrow was not, or they just reject both parties' claims. I don't think it was your fault. I don't think it was your fault. Nobody gets anything and everybody go home. And by the time the trial ended, I thought those were the only two reasonably likely outcomes, but you never say never with a jury. Now, now tip of the cap to you, there's no reason I gather. Tip of the cap to you. you sent a text out to me and to producer Mike as I recall, right as the jury went out to deliberate that was a perfect called shot. It was this two hours they're gonna come back for the defendant and they did. So, I don't know if there's any money to be made in prognosticating these kinds of things. In fact, it's probably illegal to bet on the outcome of jury trials. But yeah, this was the result you were predicting to the jury and this is the result we got.
Noah:
And here's another prediction. When the jurors actually speak to the media, what you're going to hear is they made their decision within the first 15 minutes, but they stayed two hours to make it seem like they were given the parties really doing their job after eight days in trial.
Bill:
And I mean, it takes some time to select a four person of the jury and those sorts of things too. I was surprised they didn't hang around for a free meal or something, but I guess they just wanted to get home.
Noah:
Yeah, I mean, look, the plaintiff had the burden of proof in this case. And they had to be too perfect and too many, too many details and facts had to fall their way for them to have a chance. You always have a chance when you go to a jury, you never know what the jury's going to do. But most of the time I think, and I think you would agree, the jury does get it right. And I did think they got it right
Bill:
Yeah,
Noah:
here.
Bill:
I was inclined the same way they were having heard the testimony. I do want to draw out a couple of things, I guess, from the, well, I guess first from the testimony towards the end, the defend the defendants, right? Paltrow's Council recalled the plaintiff here, Mr. Sanderson, Dr. Sanderson, as it were, recalled him on their case in chief and just hammered him on, you know, his vacation photographs and his lifestyle and stuff like that. I thought that was pretty effective. as far as leaving a taste in the juror's mouth about, you know, wood that we all retired so well kind of thing. I don't know.
Noah:
Yeah, I thought it worked. I thought it worked as well.
Bill:
And then I did want to note there is some weirdness in the closing, first of all, the plaintiff here, Sanderson had two different attorneys give closing arguments, like they tagged out halfway through, which maybe is a thing in Utah. Like I've seen, if you're suing, and there are multiple parties on the same side of the caption, if I sue two or three defendants, each of those two or three defendants, if they are separately represented, have the chance to have separate closings. But I've never seen a situation where one party is represented by multiple attorneys, and the court lets both those attorneys give parts of the closing argument. I've never seen that before.
Noah:
Well, that's another, it was another instance of the weakness of the judge.
Mike Pulcinella:
Thank you.
Noah:
You know, if you want to allow
Mike Pulcinella:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Noah:
two attorneys or three attorneys to do the closing arguments, it's up to the court. And here they asked for it and the judge was just saying yes to everything, including miscellaneous comments. I really thought the court had no control over the proceedings.
Mike Pulcinella:
So
Noah:
To
Mike Pulcinella:
Mike
Noah:
some
Mike Pulcinella:
the podcast
Noah:
extent.
Mike Pulcinella:
producer coming in with a layman's viewpoint, do you think, do you guys think that this kind of bad lawyering and bad judging happens on celebrity cases? Or is it just that we're seeing it because these celebrity cases are televised? Is this kind of thing happening all the time and we just don't see it? Or is it these particular types of cases that bring out this kind of bad court procedures? Oh, Jesus. Bad court procedures.
Bill:
Yeah.
Noah:
I mean, my two cents, you know, I think this was exceptionally bad. The substance of the case was bad, but I thought the lawyering
Mike Pulcinella:
This is because
Noah:
was extra
Mike Pulcinella:
it's
Noah:
bad.
Mike Pulcinella:
a celebrity
Noah:
I know you
Mike Pulcinella:
case,
Noah:
don't as much.
Mike Pulcinella:
because it's a celebrity case.
Noah:
Well, celebrities should have better lawyers, shouldn't they? And I think that was the biggest shock to me. I mean, he was thorough and he won, but I was not impressed. I didn't learn anything watching the lawyers.
Bill:
Well, I think it's interesting, you know, Noah comes in with, you know, the scorching hot takes that have criticized every attorney and the judge in the case as all bad. And honestly, I'm not sure he's wrong. I was surprised that the performances that I saw out of counsel in a case like this weren't better. And I obviously take some exception to, I thought the judge was pretty liberal with allowing basically everything arguments in on opening statements in the closing argument that aren't in evidence. You remember how big the GoPro was in the opening argument and how little of the GoPro there was in the closing argument because the damage was already done. The jury was already thinking about this missing GoPro. And I'm not sure that the factual record that was actually adduced at trial was adequate that the jury should have even been thinking about this GoPro. I thought emotion and lemonade should have kept that stuff out. That said, I think where you and I differ on this is, I imagine what it would be like to have You know the bright camera in your face and know that you're you know being broadcast on national television while you're examining a witness or giving an open or a closing argument and you know Feeling feeling comfortable being in a comfortable environment matters right experience matters for a trial attorney and The familiar feeling of being on your feet in front of a judge in front of a jury in a courtroom matters And that can suddenly start feeling pretty unfamiliar When these other things are brought into the courtroom
Noah:
Yeah, I mean, I understand that, but this is their job.
Bill:
Now, I do want to note with respect to the closing argument, in addition to the weirdness that was having two attorneys do it, I couldn't believe. So the plaintiff's attorney, well, the first of the plaintiff's attorneys to give the closing argument, literally started his closing argument by talking about a car accident he witnessed. He mentioned having conversations with insurance adjusters in the context of that particular car accident. None of this was in evidence. This is just a. a lawyer saying stuff that may or may not have actually happened in his life. You know, that level of, you know, gives you a little leeway to talk about your life and construct a narrative in a close, especially as opposed to an open. But to me, there were some liberties being taken, taken with respect to just how far afield from the actual case in front of the jury he was going, in a way that if I were the juror would have backfired, I would be like, why is he talking about this stuff that isn't important, that isn't the case? Why is.
Noah:
It reeked of desperation to me. That's what I was feeling.
Bill:
Well, and then he goes on and I'm not the world's foremost student of what is apparently English history out there, but he goes on to tell a story about someone named King Morgan from back before the Magna Carta who I guess he's crediting with creation of the jury system And I'm listening to this saying there was never a king Morgan um, that's not a name that exists at least in in in English history. Maybe he's a Maybe that he's getting him confused with a king morgan from somewhere else. I don't know um But it was wild to me that he is you know essentially giving this made-up historical narrative about what seems to be a made-up king And and how he invented the jury system and then went out to golf or something It was really strange and again if I'm a juror and I have any knowledge of history at all And I'm skeptical not only am I now skeptical of this King Morgan existing But I'm skeptical of the story he told at the beginning and whether that ever even happened
Noah:
I'm not even sure I take the case. That's what was upsetting to me. You have five lawyers on the plaintiff side. They spent at least $100,000, $150,000 or more on cost. I'm not even sure I would have taken the case. So was it just to get publicity for themselves? Why did they do it? The court has decided to cancel the case. The court has decided to cancel the case. The court has decided to cancel the case. The court has decided to cancel the case. The court has decided to cancel the case. The court has decided to cancel the case. The court has decided to cancel the case.
Bill:
interesting. I think there's a mixed bag there, one of which is they probably at least initially believed their client who by the time he had gone
Noah:
Number one mistake of all lawyers, never believe your
Bill:
Yeah,
Noah:
client,
Bill:
I mean,
Noah:
never.
Bill:
you have to take at least enough skepticism to that, right? You don't want to go into your client, telling your client, I don't believe you. But you need to at least consider the fact that, you know, your client may misremember some things or your clients, you know, having a vested interest in here may or may not. Tell you every single fact that's relevant, show you the weaknesses of their case and so on. But I suspect it's a combination of they expected this to settle relatively early, right? sued not just Paltrow, but the ski resort too, and some other folks. And you get enough insurance company involved. You're taking a case, you're working the case up, and your assumption here is almost every case settles. Cases don't usually go to trial. And presumably they didn't think they were going to trial, and they just kind of got walked slowly one step after the next, after the next, into a situation where they couldn't get away from it. And the Paltrow team was insistent they did nothing wrong and they weren't gonna settle.
Noah:
So let me add something else and I have a question for you. But most of the cases that I see go to trial, partly go to trial because the lawyers create such animosity towards each other and it builds the whole situation up to a head. And the lawyers are partly to blame. And I thought that was part of the case here, that there was such animosity at times between the lawyers that you could tell they've been fighting for six years and that sort of pushed it towards a trial. But as a lawyer bill, did you actually learn anything useful? watch this trial? Was there anything that you'll use or thought would make you better? Because there wasn't.
Bill:
Um... There wasn't much. I mean, I thought recalling the witness at the end was effective as far as examination like techniques and approaches go. I learned from mistakes in as much as and I think I already knew I wouldn't have called the defendant before I called my own client if I were the plaintiff here and let her get her story in first. I knew that already. This confirmed that. As we talked about.
Noah:
Let's just call this, let's just call this Noah and Bill, trash the Pultrow lawyers. The Pultrow lawyers.
Bill:
They won! Why are we trashing the lawyers who won?
Noah:
because he was touching his mouth and picking his nose while he's talking to the jury. It was strange. The whole thing was just strange. Alright, what do you want to wrap this up? What do we want to tell anybody who followed this trial?
Mike Pulcinella:
I have one question
Bill:
Um,
Mike Pulcinella:
though. I do have
Bill:
yeah.
Mike Pulcinella:
one more question. Do you think there was a, quote, unquote, turning point? Was there a point anywhere during the course of the trial, what either of you thought it settled, it decided there in the jury's mind? Or when the jury went to decide, was it still kind of up in the air?
Bill:
To me it was the end of Gwyneth Paltrow's testimony. Like at that point the defense had called her and taken their best shot at her in her case even though her narrative of the accident was weird. She seemed credible, believable, relatively likable. She managed to kind of walk the line between not trying to put on errors of being a commoner without seeming so completely out of touch and outrageously so that you would want to to award a large dollar amount against her to shake her out of her lifestyle. Like to me, by the time her testimony ended, it was gonna require something really, really big the rest of the way out to shift things back in favor of the plaintiff having any reasonable chance of victory. And so, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.
Noah:
Yeah, Bill, I agree with you. The Paltrow testimony, when she testified that the actual impact where she felt as though she was being sexually assaulted in her mind, she wasn't being able to process what was happening. That's such a detailed fact that it gives credibility to her entire story. You're not making something up like that. She must have really felt like that. So if she felt like that, it probably wasn't that she was just a runaway You know maniac on the ski slope or whatever they called her but her testimony was credible And I think they they lost once she tested
Bill:
Yeah, I think if you're gonna call her where they called her, you have to crush her. And if she doesn't come out of there looking really bad, you've really made your own bed at that.
Mike Pulcinella:
Now you can do that wrap up you were going to do.
Bill:
All right, that's it. Wrap on the episode, wrap on the trial. Thank you for joining us here on I strenuously object. Um, please, if you have any, you know, legal questions about things that didn't happen on ski slopes in Utah, uh, please visit, uh, the website of Flaherty Fardo, that's at PGH firm.com. Uh, check out the podcast on Instagram. That is I strenuously object podcast. Um, and. Again, until then, some parting advice.
Mike Pulcinella:
That was a great wrap up. No, weren't you going to go for like one more last question or something before I interrupt it?
Noah:
Oh, I asked him what he learned and he said,
Mike Pulcinella:
Yeah, you got that. Okay.
Noah:
yeah, that's all I was thinking.
Mike Pulcinella:
Okay. All right. I thought I interrupted
Noah:
I asked him what he learned and he said, yeah, that's all I was thinking. I asked him what he learned and he said, yeah, that's all I was thinking. I asked him what he learned and he said, yeah, that's all I was thinking. I asked him what he learned and he said, yeah, that's all I was thinking. I asked him what he learned and he said, yeah, that's all I was thinking. I asked him what he learned and he said, yeah, that's all I was thinking. I asked him what he learned and he said,
Mike Pulcinella:
something. Okay.
Noah:
And then from a cover art, for some reason, I just envisioned not guilty. Like, it's, you know, it's not a criminal case,
Mike Pulcinella:
Yeah, right.
Noah:
but it sort of was accusing her
Mike Pulcinella:
Okay.
Noah:
of a crime or assault.
Mike Pulcinella:
All right.
Noah:
There's so many ways you could go with this, and I'm not sure what our goal was, but that's okay.
Mike Pulcinella:
No, it's good.
Noah:
The only people that, the only people listening are my nieces.
Mike Pulcinella:
Really?
Bill:
What did we get?